Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2023, 11:52 AM
 
85 posts, read 40,738 times
Reputation: 65

Advertisements

Chatam House is a title-happy Hoot!

Check out the drop-down menu of titles they accommodate at the top of the link.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/user/register

It seems only if you are an Emperor, Sultan, or a Pope are you out of luck...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2023, 01:54 PM
 
711 posts, read 296,587 times
Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApprenticeWineSnob View Post
Chatam House is a title-happy Hoot!

Check out the drop-down menu of titles they accommodate at the top of the link.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/user/register

It seems only if you are an Emperor, Sultan, or a Pope are you out of luck...
Wut?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2023, 02:00 PM
 
711 posts, read 296,587 times
Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Austen View Post
The world is well on it's way to destruction because of the increasing lust for the three things that will cause it to happen. Money, power and religion
I don't agree. These things have always existed in abundance, probably less so now as the world is more secular and democratic (note that I don't say "totally", just "less" compared to centuries ago).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2023, 06:06 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
I think a Trump victory is highly likely in 2024, and that this could have a significant impact on US Foreign policy and international global affairs.

In a recent article in 'The Financial Times (London)' entitled 'Europe must not be caught short if Trump wins again', the paper warns that 'American talk of a ‘dormant Nato’ should be a wake-up call for leaders on the continent', and that Europe must work towards new alternative security and defence collaboration, as well as possible taking over responsibility for the bulk of funding to Ukraine.

Other experts from respected think tanks such as the The Royal Institute of International Affairs, commonly known as Chatham House, are also in agreement in relation to such a possible scenario.

Then again I don't like Biden, and wouldn't vote for him if I were American, and in terms of Britain and Europe all we can do is to plan ahead in relation to such a possible scenario.
Why is Europe being responsible for its own security such a bad thing. When you think about it, it's kind of weird having to depend on a country an ocean away for security.

On another note, depending on another nation for your security comes with a cost. As the old saying goes "aint nothing free." In this case it having to align foreign policy with that the of the U.S. Iran is a good example. The Europeans desired good relations with Iran. The deal reached was supposed to bring economic development and good relations between the two. Well, the U.S. killed that and there was nothing Europe could do about it. Germany is another example. It’s bascially understood the U.S. has something to do with the blowing up on the Nordstream pipeline. Once again though, there was nothing Europe could do. Now the U.S. is trying to get Europe to go along with its China policy, which I can't say is of any benefit to Europe.

In theory a Europe that provides its own defense would be freer in its decision making. France recognized this decades ago but has had no success in getting other European nations on its side. If anything, Europe should hope Trump cuts ties this way they final have a valid reason to make something happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2023, 06:08 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wadd View Post
I don't agree. These things have always existed in abundance, probably less so now as the world is more secular and democratic (note that I don't say "totally", just "less" compared to centuries ago).
I agree the religion aspect appears to be less of a factor in this age. Even the conflicts that are supposedly fought under a religious guise are really disputes of over land. A course the desire for power and money will never go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2023, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,209 posts, read 13,496,080 times
Reputation: 19559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major View Post
I agree the religion aspect appears to be less of a factor in this age. Even the conflicts that are supposedly fought under a religious guise are really disputes of over land. A course the desire for power and money will never go away.
I don't think is necessarily a bad think, although it would have a big impact on US influence in Europe as well as an impact in terms of possible future relations, and could cause some potential problems.

It's also worth noting that some articles suggest the real issue may not be Trump leaving NATO but instead withdrawing US forces from Europe, leaving NATO's Command Structures, and questioning Article 5 and whether he would go to the aid of European countries in a War. All of this would all but destroy NATO as a credible alliance backed by US military power. The other major problem may be continued funding in terms of Ukraine and in terms of US and European relations.

In terms of the political map of Europe has changed since Trump was last in office and even Poland under Donald Tusk is going to have major problems with Trump, whilst Angela Merkel has been replaced by a more austere looking Olaf Schlz, and then you have the rise of the right in many parts of Europe and Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, could become president in 2027.

The rise of right wing parties including Le Pen's National Rally, which have links to Russia and criticise Western support for Ukraine could well be a further problem for the US, and it might surprise some Americans that France has a history of close relations with Soviets even during the Cold War, whilst post Cold War Germany always looked on Russia as a close ally.

Whilst a US withdrawal from Europe may lead to ever more European military and security collaboration, it would also lessen US influence and Macron once stated that a more united and collaborative European military would keep Beijing, Moscow and Washington DC in check, and in terms of Moscow, it was Macron who tried to negotiate with Putin, due to the historic Franco Soviet relationship, which was Charles de Gaulle's plan to maintain French military power and to balance power in Europe away from the US.

At the same time Charles de Gaulle's Government withdrew from NATO Integrated Command structures, closed all US bases and NATO facilities in France and stopped training with other NATO countries, thereby unofficially leaving NATO, for over 40 years and not returning to 2009, and Trump could do exactly the same in terms of the US without officially leaving NATO.

The Economist stated in a recent article the "the difference between future Democratic or Republican presidents may be only the speed and extent to which America pivots away from Europe", and if this is the case then Europe itself could pivot away from the US and what is seen as waning US influence, and there are number of politicians from th Gaullists through to the socialist leaning left as well as certain right wing parties who would welcome this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Global Times (2020)

France and Russia benefit from special relationship.

Anyone familiar with the history of international relations during the Cold War knows that even during that icy period, when relations between the West and the Soviet Union were strained, former French president Charles de Gaulle attempted to establish a "special partnership" with the Soviet Union. The coexistence of the close Franco-Soviet relationship and the bipolar structure was in line with the purpose of the Soviet Union to drive a wedge in the Western camp and the purpose of France to maintain its great power status.

It formed a win-win situation between France and the Soviet Union. The special relationship between the two sides during the Cold War laid a foundation for their later relationship.

France and Russia benefit from special relationship - Global Times (2020)


Last edited by Brave New World; 12-31-2023 at 06:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2023, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,209 posts, read 13,496,080 times
Reputation: 19559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowlander67 View Post
Perhaps NATO can be organized so that Europe is represented as a whole instead of the countries individually.

In that case, there would be a North American branch and a European branch of NATO. The Europeans might be represented a bit more strongly in that case. Now, the individual countries have much less influence in this organization compared to the US and NATO seems to be a bit out of balance in that respect.*
I would have though if the US wanted to leave NATO or withdraw troops, the time to have done it would have been in the early 1990's and it's the US itself that has been instrumental in making sure NATO survives and in relation to it's increasing expansion since the end of the Cold War.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The New York Times (July 2023)

NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is - New York Times (July 2023)

Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization truly came into its own. NATO acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in Eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which — as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser put it — “the pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free markets” and “the promotion of collective security” marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATO’s information apparatus.

When European populations proved too stubborn, or undesirably swayed by socialist or nationalist sentiments, Atlantic integration proceeded all the same. The Czech Republic was a telling case. Faced with a likely “no” vote in a referendum on joining the alliance in 1997, the secretary general and top NATO officials saw to it that the government in Prague simply dispense with the exercise; the country joined two years later. The new century brought more of the same, with an appropriate shift in emphasis. Coinciding with the global war on terrorism, the “big bang” expansion of 2004 — in which seven countries acceded — saw counterterrorism supersede democracy and human rights in alliance rhetoric. Stress on the need for liberalization and public sector reforms remained a constant.

By forbidding duplication of existing capabilities and prodding allies to accept niche roles, NATO has stymied the emergence of any semiautonomous European force capable of independent action. As for defense procurement, common standards for interoperability, coupled with the sheer size of the U.S. military-industrial sector and bureaucratic impediments in Brussels, favor American firms at the expense of their European competitors. The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened allies’ ability to defend themselves.

Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget — less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened America’s hand. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards.

In Ukraine, the pattern is clear. Washington will provide the military security, and its corporations will benefit from a bonanza of European armament orders, while Europeans will shoulder the cost of postwar reconstruction — something Germany is better poised to accomplish than the buildup of its military.

The war also serves as a dress rehearsal for U.S. confrontation with China, in which European support cannot be so easily counted on. Limiting Beijing’s access to strategic technologies and promoting American industry are hardly European priorities, and severing European and Chinese trade is still difficult to imagine. Yet already there are signs that NATO is making headway in getting Europe to follow its lead in the theater.

Contd....

NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is - New York Times (July 2023)

Last edited by Brave New World; 12-31-2023 at 07:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2023, 01:38 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,997,019 times
Reputation: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
I would have though if the US wanted to leave NATO or withdraw troops, the time to have done it would have been in the early 1990's and it's the US itself that has been instrumental in making sure NATO survives and in relation to it's increasing expansion since the end of the Cold War.
Yes, the time to do it was in the early 90s, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, foreign policy by the U.S. gov't has been an incoherent mess, with the partial exception of "the war on terror"-which led to un-winnable wars.

At this point, I don't think the U.S. gov't can play a constructive role in world affairs, so it probably best for the rest of the world if the U.S.A. returns to isolationism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2023, 07:32 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 871,039 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowlander67 View Post
I totally agree with you. European countries should be responsible for their own defense, preventing them from becoming US vassals. This, in theory shouldn't be a problem with more than 600 million people. The difference with the US is that there is much less interest in the military. Europe has no ambition to become some kind of world leader, which seems to be much more a US goal.

The only threat is basically Russia at the moment. Most Europeans reason that if there are enough forces to protect them from that country and if they can protect the shipping lanes necessary for trade, that is enough.

You are right that only the French are making a serious effort to organize some kind of European army, but unfortunately, there is little enthusiasm for it.

There are some European defense organizations, but most of them are no more than paper tigers and consist of a few thousand men. That is not enough to effectively defend Europe.

I think European countries will still heavily rely on NATO for their protection in the coming years.
The problem with Europe is that it isn't as coherent as they try to portray. I often wonder if article 5 were triggered, how many members would actually come to the defense of that attacked nation? Do Norway and Turkey really have much in common that would cause them to send troops to each other aid. How reliable would Slovenia be for example. NATO worked when it was smaller and focused on a singular adversary (the Warsaw Pact). Now it seems more like a club which weaker nations get free defense commitments from stronger nations. In return the stronger nations get a level of vassal like control. As Bismarck put it "within an alliance, there is always a horse and and rider."

To a large degree the Ukraine war exposed NATO. Hungry and Turkey are showing division is present. Outside of this the Baltic nations and Poland are at odds with other members regarding the level of Ukraine support. This is the problem with an alliance grows to this size.

In the end I think it would be better for Europe to divide its defense into blocks. The Baltic Nations and Finland, and Poland can form their own units since they are all terrified of the Russians. No need to try and drag other European states such as Hungry into their line of thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2024, 12:30 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,997,019 times
Reputation: 1988
It seems that India is supplying Armenia with weapons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top